Some Law 27 examples with club TDs

I looked at some examples of Law 27 with some club TDs this weekend. The examples were meant to illustrate ruling on the consequences of insufficient bids, not the choice of corrections under the new laws.

N:1S - E:1H - S:TD!

We weren't sure if East had meant to open 1H or if he was overcalling 1minor with 1H but we imagined that East told us (away from the table) that he meant to open 1H. The 1H insufficient bid and a correction to 2H were both natural, so a correction to 2H would not silence partner (Law 27:B.1.(a)). The only calls that show hearts are overcalls in hearts, so we looked at whether a 3H overcall would not silence partner (under Law 27:B.1.(b)):

• if 3H is weak it is not contained in a 1H opening, so a weak 3H would silence parnter;
• if 3H is intermediate (opening values, 6 card suit) it is more precise that a 1H opening and so would not silence partner;
• if 3H is strong, then it is not contained in a 1H opening, because some strong jump overcalls would be worth an Acol 2H opening, so a strong 3H would silence partner.

E:1NT - S:1C - W:TD!

1C was (necessarily) a natural opening bid. (1NT)-2C would be Landy [both majors], so 2C is artificial, and Law 27:B.1.(a) does not apply. (1NT)-3C was poorly defined in NS system, but would be a different hand from a 1C opening and was not contained in a 1C opening. No call would not silence partner under Law 27:B.1.

S:1NT - W:Pass - N:1S - E:TD!

North told us that he intended to open 1S and NS responses to 1NT are stayman and transfers, with 2S meaning some artificial (not spades). Law 27:B.1.(a) did not apply. Law 27:B.1.(b) did apply to 3S which was natural with spades (but we failed to consider that an Acol two opening would exclude some hands from a 1S opening). The club TDs had to be prompted to consider a correction to 2H (transfer), this shows spades, but not opening values, so is not contained in the 1S opening bid and would silence partner under Law 27:B.1.(b). I wondered if North had said that 1S was a response to 1C (say), whether we would allow a 2H transfer to not silence partner.

We concluded that there was much to find out about the offending pair's system, even in apparently simple cases: do they play strong two openings, what hands are shown by a jump overcall. There are harder questions when the offending pair may not have clear agreements about what a rarely used call would actually show.

EBL recommended TD Law 27 procedure

The European Bridge Laws [EBL] held a seminar on the new laws and Max Bavin gave the presentation on Law 27. The presentation was posted to the Internet on Bridge Laws Mailing List [BLML], attached to http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2008-June/040747.html [www.amsterdamned.org is no longer working, see comment - RMB 2010-08-26].

This is the section on the recommended procedure for TD to adopt in ruling on Law 27.

Recommended Tournament Director procedure

1. Advise the offender to say nothing at the table which might indicate what it was he thought he was doing, as to do so may create Unauthorised Information [UI] for his partner (Law 16B refers).
2. Advise the left hand opponent [LHO] that he may accept or reject the insufficient bid [IB], explaining that if he rejects it the offender will have the following options:-
   • if the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same denomination, and if neither call is artificial, then the auction will continue without any further rectification
   • if the offender makes a call (any legal call) which has either an identical meaning as the IB or has a more precise meaning (such meaning being already fully contained within the scope of the IB), then the auction will continue without any further rectification
   • otherwise, the offender can make any legal call he wishes other than a double or redouble, but his partner will be silenced throughout.
3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD]).
4. If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the offender was trying to do when he made it. He will almost inevitably need to do this away from the table in order that the other three players remain unaware of the reason. The TD then advises the player of his options (still away from the table) i.e. which calls, if any, will allow the auction to proceed without further rectification. If the correction is to be allowed under 27B1(b), this may well involve quite a detailed (and possibly skilled) discussion and analysis of the player’s system. The offender then selects his call at the table, and the TD advises the table as a whole whether or not partner is silenced throughout.
5. There may be Law 26 type lead penalties if the offending side become defenders. Please see this Law even in 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) cases.
6. At the end of play, the TD may need to examine whether there is any reason to adjust the score. In general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 16B type UI), if the IB has been accepted then all should be well. Also, in general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 23), if partner has been silenced throughout then all should be well. Note that ‘rub of the green’ or ‘just being lucky’ is perfectly acceptable when partner has been silenced throughout - Law 27D does not apply, do not even think about going there!

Now I understand the reasons for decisions in this procedure: that a practical approach is needed to ruling under Law 27. But I don't like that the meaning of the insufficient bid is to be determined by asking the offender; the law doesn't refer to the intended meaning of insufficient bid but to "possible meanings of the insufficient bid".

I also don't like that left hand opponent [LHO] does not know which replacement calls by offender will not silence offender's partner, when LHO has to choose whether or not to accept the insufficient bid. Previously, I used to determine whether the insufficient bid and the sufficient correction were conventional or not, before explaining the consequences of accepting or rejecting the insufficient bid. Now LHO has to work this out for themselves [I use "they" etc. as a gender neutral pronoun], based on questions about the opponents' system.

But this is all new territory and it is good to have a procedure that may be uniformly adopted across Europe for ruling on insufficient bids. I think we are all keen to see some real rulings and see how the law and the recommended procedure work in practice.